I just don't get it, you take the Unix "move" command, call it
"rename" and then stop it working like "move".
That doesn't seem to be the case. Revolution's rename command (which
doesn't exist in unix) is mapped to the mv command (which does) and
uses the first form, which is also the default form. I see below
that there are several flags which affect whether the mv command
will prompt before overwriting a file. I assume that to keep things
simple, MetaCard used no flags in its interpretation of the mv
command and assumed the developer would handle fie duplicates in
scripts.
May be the relation of renaming to mv makes more sense if one
realizes that renaming files in Unix is done using the mv, yes, the
move command.
It makes as much sense as using rename to move ;-)
I gather the primary use of mv from MetaCard's perspective was to
support renaming files, and the capability to actually move them came
as bonus.
One could write wrapper functions, one to move and another to rename,
each checking whether filenames and paths are changed or not changed
as expected, and checking for existence of files that can be
overwritten with a parameter controlling whether it is ok to do it.
These could be added to IDE as revMoveFile and revRenameFile and
leave the original rename for the brave ones :)
Robert
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
